Meavy Valley Archaeology

Site Report No. 4

STANLAKE PREHISTORIC

STONE ROW

2

First published in Great Britain in 1997 by

Sandy Gerrard

Copyright © Sandy Gerrard 1997

Front cover: The south-western end of the stone row (Copyright: Helen Gerrard)

MEAVY VALLEY ARCHAEOLOGY

STANLAKE STONE ROW

CONTENTS

Introduction.................................................... 3

Getting There................................................. 3

Archaeological History.................................. 5

The Survey .................................................... 7

The Row ........................................................ 7

Discussion...................................................... 9

Dating ............................................................ 12

Function ........................................................ 14

Conclusion .................................................... 15

Acknowledgments .........................................16

Further Reading ............................................ 16

List of Figures

Figure 1 Location Map

Figure 2 Plan of the stone row

Figure 3 Simplified plan and profile of the stone row

Figure 4 Bar graph showing height of visible stones within the row

Figure 5 Bar graph showing the distance between stones

Figure 6 Plan of the three cairns at the south western end of the row

Figure 7 Profiles across the cairns at the south western end of the row

Figure 8 Plan showing archaeological features of all periods within the vicinity of the

row

Figure 9 The stone row and its prehistoric context

3

Introduction

The stone row at Stanlake lies just inside the historic fields associated with Stanlake Farm

and although now partly buried beneath a substantial field boundary it still forms an obvious

visual landmark. The row leads from NGR SX57217155 to SX57007137, measures 294m

long and includes at least 57 visible stones. Its north eastern end is denoted by a substantial

blocking stone and its lower south western end by three funerary cairns. The row lies in an

area containing abundant field evidence relating to prehistoric activity, lying as it does

between two major settlements and within 460m of three other rows (See Figure 9).

This report is not intended to be a definitive interpretative or descriptive statement and

simply represents an interim report designed to provide up to date information and to

encourage interest in the ongoing archaeological work being carried out within the Meavy

valley. Suggestions and/or information concerning this site or any other in the valley will

always be welcomed. If you would like to find out more about other available publications

please write to:- Dr Sandy Gerrard, Hillview, The Village, Wembworthy, Chulmleigh, Devon

EX18 7RX.

Getting There (Figure 1)

The stone row lies east of the B3212 which leads between Princetown and Yelverton and it

is shown on the Ordnance Survey 1:25000 Outdoor Leisure Map 28.

The stone row, in contrast to the nearby prehistoric settlement (Meavy Valley Archaeology

Site Report 1) currently lies mainly above the bracken and can, therefore, be visited at any

time of year. The site is readily accessible from the B3212, and those traveling to the area by

car can park at SX 560708 or in the smaller car park at SX 57507254. The walk to the site

from the large car park will take you across the Walkhampton Common Reave, past several

prehistoric burial cairns, and a small eluvial tin streamwork. The journey from the smaller car

park will take you across the slopes of Black Tor (Meavy Valley Archaeology Site Report 5).

The row remains hidden from view when approaching it from the moorland until the field

boundary denoting the extent of Stanlake's infield is crossed.

The monument lies within an area owned by South West Water and their support for the

archaeological work being carried out on their land is much appreciated. Please remember

that all archaeological remains once damaged can never be replaced and they should never be

interfered with in any way. This stone row is protected as a Scheduled Ancient Monument.

4

Figure 1 Map showing the location of Stanlake Stone Row

5

Archaeological History

The Stanlake stone row first appears in the archaeological literature in 1903 at which

time R. Hansford Worth notes that he had found it during the previous 6 years. In his paper

presented to the Devonshire Association at their Sidmouth meeting in July he also admits that

“A precise knowledge of the whole area of Dartmoor appears to be an attainment of great

difficulty” - a feeling with which the present writer is in full agreement..

Accompanying Worth’s paper is a map showing the location of the row and a detailed

description of its major features including a large number of dimensions. For our present

purposes it is useful to highlight some of his observations.

1. The row measures 950 feet (289.43m) long and terminates at the north-east in a blocking

stone.

2. The position of the blocking stone indicates that the row was originally of the double type

and that the northern stones have been buried by the adjacent field boundary.

3. The position of the stones relative to the field boundary indicates that it is a genuine stone

row rather than part of the boundary itself.

4. Stones in the outer face of the field wall “look like the second members of the avenue”.

It is, however, very surprising given the level of detail presented in his paper, that

Worth would appear to have overlooked the cairns at the south western end of the row. One

of these cairns was first identified by J.G. Barton as recently as 1977 and the other two not

reported until 1992 (Devon County Sites and Monuments Register, SX57SE102).

Crossing writing in 1909, a few years after the row’s discovery, noted that despite

being built under a later field wall that the row is "very distinct in places" (Crossing, W.,

1990, 452). Clearly these sentiments were not shared by D.D. Emmett, who deliberately

excluded it from his list of Dartmoor Rows. No reasons for this action are given, although it

must be assumed that he believed it to be part of the adjacent field boundary.

The row was surveyed at a scale of 1:1000 by the Ordnance Survey in 1977 and the

accompanying report describes the row as being 283.6m long and consisting of 60 stones.

This report also notes that 21 stones of the northern row are also visible within the field wall

face, although the report does also point out that these may possibly be part of the wall itself

(National Monuments Record, SX57SE35).

The most reliable existing published survey is that by Jeremy Butler who in 1979

surveyed the row at a scale of 1:100. In addition he planned the terminal cairns at the south

western end of the row and the detail of the area around the blocking stone. Reduced versions

of his survey and plans are published in his Dartmoor Atlas of Antiquities - Volume Three -

The South-West, pp. 48-9. Butler notes that the row is 295m long and includes 54 visible

stones. He also agrees with Worth that some of the stones in the outer face of the field wall

may be original parts of the row.

6

Figure 2 Detailed plan showing the stone row and adjacent historic field boundary. The

original survey was carried out at 1:200.

7

The Survey

The survey of the row was carried out on the 13th May 1996 at a scale of 1:200 using

a theodolite set up at two stations. Each stone in the row was plotted together with the corn-

ditch wall and any other adjacent features. Each stone was then measured with its height,

length, width and dominant alignment being recorded. Compared with most rows the height

measurement in particular is perhaps less useful than normal because some of the stones are

partly buried and would therefore have originally appeared much higher. The detailed plan of

the row together with the associated cairns is presented in Figure 2 and demonstrates beyond

doubt that Emmett was mistaken to exclude this row from his list. This plan is presented as a

series of four separate segments because the length of the row precludes presenting this level

of detail as a single uninterrupted illustration. Figure 3 shows the character of the row much

better, though obviously much of the detail could not shown at this scale. This illustration

also utilises some of the results from the detailed measurement of each stone and together

with the plan is a generalised profile of each stone and its position relative to the others.

The cairns at the south western end of the row were surveyed using a planetable at a

scale of 1:50 and their profiles were recorded by taking measurements from a horizontal line

placed above the mounds. Individual small stones were not recorded since Butler's plan

already shows much of this information (Butler, 1994, 49). The resultant plan is illustrated in

Figure 6 and the profiles in Figure 7.

The area surrounding the row was also surveyed revealing a range of structures and

features including cairns, a cairnfield, historic field systems and leats. This work was carried

out using a theodolite and the results drawn up at a scale of 1:2500. The resultant plan is

presented as Figure 8.

The Row

Detailed survey combined with measurement of the individual stones allows the row

to be presented in a number of ways and enables us to appreciate this monument better. At

the simplest level, the plan of the stone row enables us to view the relationship between each

of the stones and the nearby boundary bank. Figure 2 indicates that many of the stones lie

within the field boundary, although a small number are indeed freestanding confirming the

interpretation of the feature as a row rather than an inner wall revetment. The field boundary

is certainly reveted internally in places and where this survives a revetment of relatively small

stones is clearly visible and can in no way be confused with the stones forming the row.

Figure 3 on the other hand is produced to provide an overview of the stone row, which is

clearly not straight throughout its length. The row can be seen as three distinct parts, forming

the whole. The northern part includes 39 stones forming a straight line. The central group of

8 stones is separated from the northern row by a 66.2m wide gap, whilst the southern group is

on a slightly different alignment to the others. Many stone rows have a shift of alignment

within their length and this has also happened here. Unfortunately because the shift occurs

within the part of the row which is no longer visible it is not possible to be sure that the

different parts of the row represent the same alignment of stones. It is, for example, possible

that the stones within the southern half of the row represent the western alignment whilst

those to the north of the gap belong to the eastern side of the row. This interpretation flies in

the face of that offered by Butler and others, who like to see some of the orthostats forming

the other face of the corn-ditch boundary being original stones forming part of the alignment.

Examination of this wall revealed a number of orthostats, but it was not possible to be sure

that any had originally belonged to the row. I would therefore suggest that it is possible that

the northern 39 stones form part of the eastern row whilst the southern 17 stones form part of

a western row.

8

9

The size of the surviving stones can be most easily appreciated by examining the

lower part of Figure 3 and Figure 6. In Figure 3, the stones of the stone row are shown with

the lower part of each pillar representing the position of each stone, the height of the pillar

represents the height of each stone and the width the length of each stone. The result is a

cross-sectional depiction of the row, although the profile of the natural terrain is not shown

and instead the position of each stone relative to each other is emphasised. It was the

production of this drawing which first suggested the possibility that both sides of the row may

be visible. Butler, notes that there is a measurable increase in the height of the stones towards

both ends of the row, but this illustration and the bar graph (Figure 4) indicate that this is

really not the case, with some of the highest stones within the row surviving within its centre.

It is true to say that the three stones at each end are larger than average, but to emphasize this

is to lose sight of the other substantial stones. The bar graph in particular appears to indicate

that whilst most stones are under 0.5m high, those above this height are scattered

intermittently between the others. The use of the occasional larger stone would have perhaps

enhanced the appearance of the row, though clearly there may have been more significant

reasons for this.

The imposition of the field boundary onto the row has certainly affected its visual

appearance. In only one place, at the north eastern end, does the blocking stone indicate that

the row originally included at least two lines of stones but elsewhere only one of the rows

survives at any point along its length.

Discussion

The stone row is one of nine known to survive within the Meavy Valley. The

presence of the blocking stone at the north-eastern end indicates that it is most likely to be of

the double row variety although parts of the row have been buried by the adjacent corn-ditch

wall. There is, however, a reasonable chance that many of the stones which originally formed

the western row still survive beneath the field wall. It cannot be a coincidence that the field

wall follows the course of the row and it is very likely that the once very obvious row was

used to mark the outer edge of Stanlake Farm's enclosed land. When the original permission

to enclose was granted it is very likely that such an obvious linear land mark was used by the

landowners to denote the upper edge of the area available for enclosure. The use of the row

in this way is to a certain extent unfortunate since the result has certainly been the partial loss

of what must have originally been a particularly impressive monument. However, we should

perhaps be grateful that the boundary was not placed further to the west with the stone row

thus falling within an enclosed area and being more susceptible to robbing. Although the

field wall has certainly significantly reduced the visual amenity of the site, it may also have

protected the monument, with obviously further damage being prevented. The extent of

damage to the visible parts of the row can best be examined by a simple analysis of the

spacing between the stones. Figure 5 illustrates the distance between the stones and indicates

that only in three locations along the length of the row are there gaps greater than 10m, and

that there is really only one substantial part which is no longer visible.

The row is unusual in that the blocking stone is at the upper end of the row and the

cairns at the lower end. In all other examples within the valley there are cairns at the upper

end, though some have other cairns close to the lower end. The three cairns at the lower end

of the row were surveyed and the resultant plan and profiles clearly illustrate that all of the

mounds have been interfered with in some way. The two larger mounds both have substantial

trenches cut into them whilst the smaller one appears to have suffered less with a small

additional mound being added at a later date. The large western mound appears to have

suffered most with part of its northern side also being lost. It is very likely that the damage

was carried out when the corn-ditch wall was built, and there are certainly no records of any

10

Figure 4 This bar graph illustrates clearly the various heights of the stones within the row

Figure 5 The bar graph shows that only in three major places are the stones no longer visible.

11

artefacts being recovered. The small mound is similar in character to large numbers of other

mounds which survive within the vicinity of the row (Figure 8). Some of these other mounds

are definitely of historic date, with for example the one at SX 57147148 (Labeled A in Figure

8) overlying the leat which in turn underlies the corn-ditch boundary which itself partly buries

the row. Butler, however, has suggested that some may be of prehistoric date and whilst it is

impossible to totally refute this, it does seem most likely that all the small cairns lying south-

east of the row are associated with the historic field system rather than the row. There are a

number of reasons for suggesting this much less exciting interpretation. First, if the cairns

were indeed associated with the row, one would expect at least one other to survive on the

moorland side of the row. Despite an extensive search no cairns were found in this area and

one is left noting that the cairn distribution coincides with the historic field system. Second,

many of the cairns are relatively small, none appear to have been dug into by antiquarians or

robbers and most have their stone core still exposed. These criteria taken together suggests

that it is unlikely that these cairns are prehistoric. By contrast, however, a small group of

three mounds lying 100m SSW of the lower end of the row (Labeled B in Figure 8) are more

likely to represent funerary cairns. The northern mound within this group measures 7.5m in

diameter and stands up to 0.7m high. A few retaining stones are visible around the perimeter

of the mound, indicating the presence of a kerb which survives largely as a buried feature. A

slight hollow in the centre of the mound measuring 2.4m long by 1.2m wide and 0.15m deep,

suggests partial early excavation or robbing. The western mound by contrast has not been

disturbed and measures 4.7m in diameter and stands up to 0.7m high. A few stones set on

edge around the western perimeter of this mound indicate the presence of a kerb. The third

mound measures 3m in diameter and stands up to 0.5m high. These cairns are illustrated in

Meavy Valley Archaeology Site Report No. 1.

Stone rows should however, never be examined in isolation. They originally formed

part of a complex and structured landscape which was in turn the product of a highly

sophisticated society. The Stanlake stone row sits within a rich prehistoric landscape, and

whilst it is not possible to be sure that every element is contemporary it is worth illustrating

the nature of that landscape. Figure 9 shows the row lying between a number of settlements

and three other rows. The Stanlake row is visible from all the settlements and other rows

shown and therefore must have contributed at the very least to the visual character of the area.

Its prominent location suggests that it was meant to be seen and this would imply that by the

time it reached its final form, the surrounding woodland had been cleared. The precise

character of the relationship between this row and the others in the area is not known, but it

might be significant that none of the others are aligned onto this row. In broad terms it is

tempting to see the Stanlake row as having being built by the inhabitants of the settlement to

the south. Certainly, these people would have been aware of the row and the fact that they

appear to have respected it strongly suggests that it played some role in their lives. The

precise nature of the relationship is uncertain, but since the row lies within the area of upland

grazing closest to a settlement, it probably remained a focus for activity.

12

Figure 6 Plan of the three cairns at the south western end of the row.

Figure 7 Profiles across the cairns at the south western end of the row.

Dating

The date at which stone rows were erected remains uncertain. Evidence from

Dartmoor as a whole strongly suggests that many were already built by the Middle Bronze

Age (c. 1400-1000 BC) and that by this time some at least were no longer being respected. At

Hurston Ridge and Shovel Down, for example, earlier stone rows were incorporated into an

enclosure and field system respectively. It is, however, interesting to note that in both cases

the stones themselves were left intact suggesting that they were still being venerated. Dating

evidence relating to the row at Stanlake is almost non existent and at best, circumstantial. The

round cairns at the south western end are of a type generally considered to have been

constructed during the Bronze Age, and the nearby settlements are also likely to have been

occupied at this time. However, these associations do not in themselves provide evidence of a

Bronze Age date. None of the cairns lie directly at the end of the row and even if they did,

this would not prove that they were erected at the same time. The cairns may have been built

at the end of an already existing row or conversely the row may have been built to lead away

from existing cairns. Utilizing evidence from the rest of the moor the most likely

13

interpretation is that the row was constructed within a forest clearing sometime towards to the

end of the Neolithic or early part of the Bronze Age(c. 2600-1400 BC) and the cairns were

added some time after.

Figure 8 Plan showing archaeological features of all periods within the vicinity of the row.

14

Function

The reason for stone rows being erected is one for which archaeology has few

definitive answers. They are generally accepted as being some sort of ritual monument and

their association with burial cairns certainly supports this hypothesis. However, since many

were probably built originally with no associated cairns, it may that the ritual function

developed in later years and was not part of their original design. However when seeking a

purely utilitarian function for these structures it is very difficult to come up with any

satisfactory answers. Their siting often between prehistoric settlements may lead one to

conclude that they were some sort of early territorial boundary marker, but this interpretation

does not stand up to scrutiny when one considers the care taken in their construction. They

certainly could not have played a role in the early forms of agriculture and one is left asking if

they did not form sort of ritual focus, then why was it that so many certainly developed a

ritual function in later years when cairns and in some instances stone circles were built

nearby? It is thus most likely that the rows were built to carry out a ritual function and in later

years many were to form the focus of ritual activity associated with funerary practices. But

were stone rows always associated with funerary practices? The answer is that we really do

not know and until an extensive excavation programme is carried out we are unlikely to

know. My own personal view is that many of the stone rows were built over a number of

generations by local communities, with each stone being either erected by a member of the

community to celebrate a particular life event or perhaps being erected by the relatives of the

recently deceased. There is, of course, no evidence to support this, but it would be wonderful

to think that a stone erected by or to the memory of an individual who lived, worked and died

on the moor over 4,000 years ago remains in place to this day. Following this theme only a

little further, might it be possible that the size and spacing of each stone may have meant a

great deal to the local community in the same way that grave stones in the modern churchyard

can tell us so much about today's communities. It is thus possible that the precise layout of

each stone row is more than a coincidence and that each contained information relating to the

community which built it. There are, however, many other equally tenable explanations for

the function of stone rows and whilst it would very depressing to contemplate that we shall

never be able to ascertain their true function in prehistoric societies it is clear that much

further work is needed if we are to get closer to the truth about this type of monument.

15

Figure 9 The stone row and its prehistoric context

Conclusion

Most of the stone rows on Dartmoor have been surveyed and details concerning stone

spacing, alignment, gradient, etc. noted. In many ways the stone rows are the best recorded

class of monument on the moor and it is therefore ironic that they remain among the least

understood. The work at Stanlake has not significantly altered this picture, but is hoped that it

may represent the start of some useful analysis which will enable our appreciation of these

enigmatic sites to be more fully appreciated.

The archaeological survey of the stone row at Stanlake has confirmed that the

monument does exist and the available evidence would suggest that despite some damage to it

during the historic period a significant proportion of the original monument survives. In fact

compared with other rows which have been exposed to further damage, the partial burying of

the row will have preserved much archaeological information which may have otherwise been

lost.

16

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank South West Water Services Ltd. for permission to carry out the

archaeological fieldwork at Stanlake. In particular, Mr. Michael Green has helped

considerably and his continued support is very much appreciated. Information has also been

willingly supplied by Devon County Council Sites and Monuments Register, where details of

the fieldwork will be deposited. Help with the survey was provided by Helen and Iona

Gerrard. Helen also read earlier drafts of this text.

This digital version owes much to persistence of Bill Radcliffe who has badgered me for

some time to recast the original report into this format.

Further Reading

Butler, J., 1994, Dartmoor Atlas of Antiquities, Volume 3 - The South-West, Devon Books.

Crossing, W., 1990, Crossing’s Guide to Dartmoor, Facsimile of 2nd edition, Peninsula

Press.

Emmett, D.D., 1979, "Stone rows: the traditional view reconsidered" In Devon

Archaeological Society - Prehistoric Dartmoor in its context, 37, 94-114.

Worth, R.H., 1903, “The Stone Rows of Dartmoor, Part VI”, Transactions of the Devonshire

Association, 35, 426-9.